Forest Hill Pools
Forest Hill Pools
For the record, and for the stimulation of thoughtful and constructive comments, here is a link to a pdf as posted on SE23.com of notes taken at the last Forest Hill Pools Stakeholders meeting. http://www.se23.com/forum/attachment.php?aid=82. Although these notes were in the first place made by Penny Jarrett, one of the Forest Hill Society stakeholders, I am told they include some extra information supplied by Annabel McLaren, one of the Sydenham Society stakeholders. Now also as a web page here: http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/ForestHi ... ders2.html
Thanks for that Tim (Penny and Annabel).
As far as i can understand, there are no firm plans yet. Except to demolish the pools building sometime around August.
Everything appears to be still "up for grabs". Unless someone knows different (i.e no firm plans for the housing scheme or the design of the new pool building)
Next meeting June 11th at Forest Hill school 7pm.
Alib
As far as i can understand, there are no firm plans yet. Except to demolish the pools building sometime around August.
Everything appears to be still "up for grabs". Unless someone knows different (i.e no firm plans for the housing scheme or the design of the new pool building)
Next meeting June 11th at Forest Hill school 7pm.
Alib
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
Am I reading this report correctly?
The council is planning to demolish the buildings/ flatten the site in August but does not expect to get planning permission before September/October?
As a pretty boring planning anorak, I would have thought that outline plans for this site should already be being discussed with the Planning department and pre-application meetings be in train. Is this happening? This is not indicated.
A site of this size is complex. It is an important focal town site. There is a Grade ll listed building (beautifully refurbished by Lewisham) beside which any new building will need to sit comfortably and English Heritage will be required to comment about designs.
A landmark building to take the place of, agreed, rather run down buildings (and who was responsible for running them down?), which have formed a set of buildings that English Heritage state make "a positive contribution to the streetscape...which reflect the Victorian enthusiasm for education and health reform" and which Lewisham describes as being in "need to be addressed in terms of celebrating these important buildings, creating a special place"
There do not appear to be any designs for a rebuild according to this report. What does public consultation mean? There are a lot of questions that Lewisham Council, and the Mayor, need to answer
The timetable described appears farsical. Summer 2010 has already slipped to March 2011.
I'll eat my hat if we are swimming in these pools before the Olympics!
The council is planning to demolish the buildings/ flatten the site in August but does not expect to get planning permission before September/October?
As a pretty boring planning anorak, I would have thought that outline plans for this site should already be being discussed with the Planning department and pre-application meetings be in train. Is this happening? This is not indicated.
A site of this size is complex. It is an important focal town site. There is a Grade ll listed building (beautifully refurbished by Lewisham) beside which any new building will need to sit comfortably and English Heritage will be required to comment about designs.
A landmark building to take the place of, agreed, rather run down buildings (and who was responsible for running them down?), which have formed a set of buildings that English Heritage state make "a positive contribution to the streetscape...which reflect the Victorian enthusiasm for education and health reform" and which Lewisham describes as being in "need to be addressed in terms of celebrating these important buildings, creating a special place"
There do not appear to be any designs for a rebuild according to this report. What does public consultation mean? There are a lot of questions that Lewisham Council, and the Mayor, need to answer
The timetable described appears farsical. Summer 2010 has already slipped to March 2011.
I'll eat my hat if we are swimming in these pools before the Olympics!
So they want to knock the Pools and Louise House down without there being any plans for a new building. So next to the newly refurbished library there will be an empty building site.
What if in the future the council then decide that they have found another site for the pools and they sell off the land and a block of flats gets built on it?
Ne demolition without design!
What if in the future the council then decide that they have found another site for the pools and they sell off the land and a block of flats gets built on it?
Ne demolition without design!
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
The site is currently due to be totally demolished around July this year. It is clearly wrong that the council has such a rapid plan for demolition of all of Forest Hill Pools and Louise House. Because:
1) No consideration is being given of any draft plans or possibilities for retaining or resuing any part of the historic buildings.
2) Demolition is taking place before alternative plans or designs are published. We know what we are losing but not what we are getting.
3) There are no plans for a proper architectural competition to choose a good design for the new building (whether it reuses parts of the historic structures or not).
There should be No Demolition Without Designs.
I invite users of the forum to sing the petition to encourage the council to rethink its plans at
http://www.gopetition.com/online/19745.html
1) No consideration is being given of any draft plans or possibilities for retaining or resuing any part of the historic buildings.
2) Demolition is taking place before alternative plans or designs are published. We know what we are losing but not what we are getting.
3) There are no plans for a proper architectural competition to choose a good design for the new building (whether it reuses parts of the historic structures or not).
There should be No Demolition Without Designs.
I invite users of the forum to sing the petition to encourage the council to rethink its plans at
http://www.gopetition.com/online/19745.html
I would also add that the costs of securing the site will still largely exist whether the pool building is there or not.
This is because of the nature of some types of 'travelling folk' who like to populate areas of open space with caravans, dogs and lorries. The site will still have to have perimeter security, cameras etc.
and i'm probably going to stir things up again with the following comments, but ....
It wasn't that long ago that Lewisham took action to safeguard a building of local significance from proposed demolition/redevelopment. How ironic that Lewisham themselves now seem to be adopting a stance in complete opposition to their previously applauded efforts
Alib
This is because of the nature of some types of 'travelling folk' who like to populate areas of open space with caravans, dogs and lorries. The site will still have to have perimeter security, cameras etc.
and i'm probably going to stir things up again with the following comments, but ....
It wasn't that long ago that Lewisham took action to safeguard a building of local significance from proposed demolition/redevelopment. How ironic that Lewisham themselves now seem to be adopting a stance in complete opposition to their previously applauded efforts
Alib
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
Sorry
Singing might be fun (to Prokoviev maybe).
But signing would be even better.
Thank you for the early signers. There are currently 41 signatures and counting.
A campaign is now up and running. There should be a stall at the Forest Hill Day in Horniman Gardens on this coming Sunday, where you can sign a paper petition, get the leaflet and contact other interested people.
We are trying to get the council to listen.
The status of the petition would be enhanced if local councillors would sign. So Susan Wise, John Paschoud and Alan Till where are you, for starters? And any others?
Perhaps supportive people could ask their friends and neighbours in Forest Hill also to sign.
Singing might be fun (to Prokoviev maybe).
But signing would be even better.
Thank you for the early signers. There are currently 41 signatures and counting.
A campaign is now up and running. There should be a stall at the Forest Hill Day in Horniman Gardens on this coming Sunday, where you can sign a paper petition, get the leaflet and contact other interested people.
We are trying to get the council to listen.
The status of the petition would be enhanced if local councillors would sign. So Susan Wise, John Paschoud and Alan Till where are you, for starters? And any others?
Perhaps supportive people could ask their friends and neighbours in Forest Hill also to sign.
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
There definitely should not be any demolition of the current historic buildings until the public get a chance to look and have their say on the alternative(s) on offer. And if Lewisham have any hope of meeting the new Government target of 'free swimming for everyone by 2012' they should refurbish the Pools' frontage block and Louise House and build a beautiful new pool somewhere else on the site (there's loads of room). Swimmers of the world unite - and sign the petition!
I know Tim started this thread with the aim of encouraging people to make positive comments and suggestions, ...however the current timetable of propsed actions is clearly unacceptable.
To voice my true feelings on this thread would be to disrupt Tim's intention. I can't help but feel Lewisham are severely underestimating the strength of feeling over this issue, and if they can't come forward with tangible plans (which will be open to public discussion) before demolition, they risk an electoral backlash.
Personally, I like the 'alternative' independent plan that is circulating (unofficially). At least that forms a basis for discussion, if nothing else. It's well laid out and seems to address all the major issues, with retention of the victorian frontage and a lovely pedestrianised square.
Alib
To voice my true feelings on this thread would be to disrupt Tim's intention. I can't help but feel Lewisham are severely underestimating the strength of feeling over this issue, and if they can't come forward with tangible plans (which will be open to public discussion) before demolition, they risk an electoral backlash.
Personally, I like the 'alternative' independent plan that is circulating (unofficially). At least that forms a basis for discussion, if nothing else. It's well laid out and seems to address all the major issues, with retention of the victorian frontage and a lovely pedestrianised square.
Alib
I would very much like these plans to be circulated in my direction.ALIB wrote: Personally, I like the 'alternative' independent plan that is circulating (unofficially). At least that forms a basis for discussion, if nothing else. It's well laid out and seems to address all the major issues, with retention of the victorian frontage and a lovely pedestrianised square.
Alib
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
A reminder of where to go for the petition:
http://www.gopetition.com/online/19745.html
If you have signed, please email your friends who live locally and agree with us and ask them to sign it to.
No Demoltion Without Designs will also be present at the Forest Hill Day in Horniman Gardens on Sunday 1-6pm and you can get a poster, sign the paper petition and get a leaflet about the campaign.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/19745.html
If you have signed, please email your friends who live locally and agree with us and ask them to sign it to.
No Demoltion Without Designs will also be present at the Forest Hill Day in Horniman Gardens on Sunday 1-6pm and you can get a poster, sign the paper petition and get a leaflet about the campaign.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
As the campaign for "No demolition without designs" gathers momentum perhaps some historical background might be useful (with apologies to those who have read/heard it all before).
Holy Trinity Schools (1874), Forest Hill Pools (1885), Girls' Industrial Home (Louise House, 1890) and Forest Hill Library (1901) were built on a single large field, known as glebe land, that was awarded to the Vicar of Lewisham on the enclosure of Sydenham Common, in 1819. "Enclosure", incidentally, was a device by which those who already owned land in the parish were awarded plots of ancient common land which they fenced, to keep out "trespassers". The losers were those who owned no land, but had managed to scrape a living from the common.
The glebe land, popularly known as Vicar's Field, was let by the vicar as allotments to those who had lost their right to graze animals, gather wood, catch game etc. on the common. Over time, and in response to pressure from local groups, the vicar made parts of this large field available for purposes that were considered socially valuable.
The four buildings that cover the Dartmouth Road frontage of this field offer a vivid picture of late Victorian social attitudes: the schools offered education, particularly in the principles of the Established Church; the pools offered cleanliness (people brought their washing to be cleaned in the laundry in the basement, and there were private slipper baths) and healthy exercise; the Industrial Home gave training to "the deserving poor" to keep them from a life of crime and, of course, there was the library. In both the school and the pools the sexes were kept firmly apart. Boys and girls attending the school had separate entrances, playgrounds and classrooms. The pools also had separate male and female entrances, with separate ticket offices, pools and slipper baths for first and second class swimmers. Much of the evidence for these social divisions still survives in the pools, and would be lost with total demolition.
I believe that such a well preserved group of buildings is unique in London, if not the country. Indeed, I was speaking recently with somebody from English Heritage about a book they are preparing on London swimming pools. The EH person was intrigued to learn of the links between these four buildings (two of which are listed Grade II) and shared my view about their probable uniqueness.
It has been suggested that the foundation stone of the pools is one item that might be preserved. There is a pleasing irony in this for it mentions Theophilus William Williams. For twenty years Williams was the most powerful political figure in Lewisham, culminating in his becoming Lewisham's first mayor in 1901. However, during his mayoralty rumours began spreading about his dubious business practices. Things came to a head in 1908, when he was charged with fraud and embezzlement. On the day his trial was due to begin he committed suicide; an unfortunate decision for local historians, as the trial was abandoned and the full details of his misdemeanours never came to light. Although perhaps not honest, he was responsible for two very successful swimming pools (and two libraries), built on time and to budget.
For those who have the appetite for yet more information, there are articles on the industrial homes and the pools...
...and, of course, don't forget to sign the petition.
Holy Trinity Schools (1874), Forest Hill Pools (1885), Girls' Industrial Home (Louise House, 1890) and Forest Hill Library (1901) were built on a single large field, known as glebe land, that was awarded to the Vicar of Lewisham on the enclosure of Sydenham Common, in 1819. "Enclosure", incidentally, was a device by which those who already owned land in the parish were awarded plots of ancient common land which they fenced, to keep out "trespassers". The losers were those who owned no land, but had managed to scrape a living from the common.
The glebe land, popularly known as Vicar's Field, was let by the vicar as allotments to those who had lost their right to graze animals, gather wood, catch game etc. on the common. Over time, and in response to pressure from local groups, the vicar made parts of this large field available for purposes that were considered socially valuable.
The four buildings that cover the Dartmouth Road frontage of this field offer a vivid picture of late Victorian social attitudes: the schools offered education, particularly in the principles of the Established Church; the pools offered cleanliness (people brought their washing to be cleaned in the laundry in the basement, and there were private slipper baths) and healthy exercise; the Industrial Home gave training to "the deserving poor" to keep them from a life of crime and, of course, there was the library. In both the school and the pools the sexes were kept firmly apart. Boys and girls attending the school had separate entrances, playgrounds and classrooms. The pools also had separate male and female entrances, with separate ticket offices, pools and slipper baths for first and second class swimmers. Much of the evidence for these social divisions still survives in the pools, and would be lost with total demolition.
I believe that such a well preserved group of buildings is unique in London, if not the country. Indeed, I was speaking recently with somebody from English Heritage about a book they are preparing on London swimming pools. The EH person was intrigued to learn of the links between these four buildings (two of which are listed Grade II) and shared my view about their probable uniqueness.
It has been suggested that the foundation stone of the pools is one item that might be preserved. There is a pleasing irony in this for it mentions Theophilus William Williams. For twenty years Williams was the most powerful political figure in Lewisham, culminating in his becoming Lewisham's first mayor in 1901. However, during his mayoralty rumours began spreading about his dubious business practices. Things came to a head in 1908, when he was charged with fraud and embezzlement. On the day his trial was due to begin he committed suicide; an unfortunate decision for local historians, as the trial was abandoned and the full details of his misdemeanours never came to light. Although perhaps not honest, he was responsible for two very successful swimming pools (and two libraries), built on time and to budget.
For those who have the appetite for yet more information, there are articles on the industrial homes and the pools...
...and, of course, don't forget to sign the petition.
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
We collected 480 signatures yesterday and there are 80 on the web petition, so that makes 560 at the moment.
It was very interesting speaking with people about the pools plans. There was general (but not total) ignorance about the council's plans and a certain amount of shock that total demolition was the current plan. There was quite a lot of affection for the old building, with many people talking about how they went there as children or with their own children. Of about 100 people I spoke with only 3 refused to sign and disagreed with us, one of them on the grounds that they wanted a hydrotherapy pool now (which could be possible in new plans - Peckham Pulse has a learner pool which also functions as a hydrotherapy pool).
My general impression was very strongly that most people I spoke with (and they were a reasonable cross section of people from different parts of the area, different ages, different backgrounds and those with and without children) were suprpised and displeased by the current plan of action. Generally most people seemed to fidn it suprising that there was not a plan to renovate or refurbish the pools.
It was very interesting speaking with people about the pools plans. There was general (but not total) ignorance about the council's plans and a certain amount of shock that total demolition was the current plan. There was quite a lot of affection for the old building, with many people talking about how they went there as children or with their own children. Of about 100 people I spoke with only 3 refused to sign and disagreed with us, one of them on the grounds that they wanted a hydrotherapy pool now (which could be possible in new plans - Peckham Pulse has a learner pool which also functions as a hydrotherapy pool).
My general impression was very strongly that most people I spoke with (and they were a reasonable cross section of people from different parts of the area, different ages, different backgrounds and those with and without children) were suprpised and displeased by the current plan of action. Generally most people seemed to fidn it suprising that there was not a plan to renovate or refurbish the pools.
-
Paddy Pantsdown
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 10:04
- Location: Venner Road
I don't feel qualified to comment on my own views about the Pools as I don't use them. IMHO it is the user's view that should have priority.
I do remember going to extensive and well attended consultations on whether the Pools be demolished or, if possible, refurbished. It would be helpful if someone could post the results of swimmer's views on the choices as recorded in that consultation.
PP
I do remember going to extensive and well attended consultations on whether the Pools be demolished or, if possible, refurbished. It would be helpful if someone could post the results of swimmer's views on the choices as recorded in that consultation.
PP
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
I must echo what Tim says; of a similar number of people that I approached only one refused to sign because he opposed attempts to save anything of the pools, although he wouldn't say why.
I was surprised at the number of people who wanted to sign as soon as I mentioned Forest Hill pools, before I had a chance to explain what the petition was about. My firm impression was that an overwhelming majority was concerned about the fate of the building and would like to see significant parts preserved.
Like Tim, I tried to approach as wide a variety of people as I could, not just those who looked like easy targets.
I was surprised at the number of people who wanted to sign as soon as I mentioned Forest Hill pools, before I had a chance to explain what the petition was about. My firm impression was that an overwhelming majority was concerned about the fate of the building and would like to see significant parts preserved.
Like Tim, I tried to approach as wide a variety of people as I could, not just those who looked like easy targets.